D&D 3E/3.5 Diversity in D&D Third Edition

With 3rd Ed, our main goal was to return D&D to its roots, such as with Greyhawk deities and the return of half-orcs. By staying true to the feel of D&D, we helped the gaming audience accept the sweeping changes that we made to the rules system.

One way we diverged from the D&D heritage, however, was by making the game art more inclusive. People of color, for example, were hard to find in earlier editions, and, when they did make appearance, it wasn’t always for the best. Luckily for us, Wizards of the Coast had an established culture of egalitarianism, and we were able to update the characters depicted in the game to better reflect contemporary sensibilities.

dnd-party.jpg

A few years before 3E, the leadership at Wizards had already encouraged me to go whole-hog with the multicultural look of the RPG Everway (1995). In this world-hopping game, we provided players and Gamemasters with scores of color art cards to inspire them as they created their characters and NPCs. The art featured people and settings that looked like they could have come from fantasy versions of places all around the earth, and the gender balance was great. I once got an email from a black roleplayer who said that Everway had forever changed the way he roleplayed, so I know that the game’s multicultural look was meaningful to some gamers out there. With D&D, we took the game in the same direction, but not nearly as far. The core setting has always resembled medieval Europe, and we expanded the diversity of the characters while still maintaining the medieval milieu.

The characters that players see the most are the “fab four,” the four iconic characters that we used repeatedly in our art and in our examples of play. Two are men (the human cleric and the dwarf fighter) and two are women (the elf wizard and the halfling rogue). Given the demographics of gamers in 2000, the implication that half of all D&D characters are female was a bit of a stretch. The only complaints we got, however, were about the introductory Adventure Game, where the characters were pregenerated, with names and genders assigned to them. Some young men would have preferred fewer female characters and more males to choose from. None of us worried too much about those complaints.

In addition to the main four characters, we also assigned a particular character to represent each of the other classes, with that character appearing in examples of play and in art. The four human characters comprised a white man (the cleric), a white woman (the paladin), a black woman (the monk), and an Asian man (the sorcerer). The remaining four nonhuman iconics were three men and one woman. It was a trick to strike the right balance in assigning fantasy races and genders to all the classes and to assign ethnicities to the human characters, but the iconic characters seemed to be a big hit, and I think the diversity was part of the appeal.

Somewhat late in the process, the marketing team added Regdar, a male fighter, to the mix of iconic characters. We designers weren’t thrilled, and as the one who had drawn up the iconic characters I was a little chapped. My array of iconic characters did not include a human male fighter, and that’s the most common D&D character ever, so the marketing team gave us one. We carped a little that he meant adding a second white man to the array of characters, but at least he was dark enough to be ambiguously ethnic. Regdar proved popular, and if the marketing team was looking for an attractive character to publicize, they got one.

Back in 1E, Gary Gygax had used the phrase “he or she” as the default third person singular pronoun, a usage that gave the writing a legalistic vibe that probably suited it. In 2E, the text stated up front that it was just going to use “he” because grammatically it’s gender-neutral. Even in 1989, insisting that “he” is gender neutral was tone deaf. By the time I was working on 3E, I had been dealing with the pronoun issue for ten years. In Ars Magica (1987), we wrote everything in second person so that we could avoid gendered pronouns. The rules said things like, “You can understand your familiar” instead of “The wizard can understand his/her/their familiar.” In Over the Edge (1992), we used “he” for the generic player and “she” for the generic gamemaster, which felt balanced and helped the reader keep the two roles separate. That sort of usage became standard for Atlas Games’s roleplaying games. Personally, I use singular-they whenever I can get away with it, but 20 years ago that was still generally considered unorthodox. For 3E, I suggested that we tie the pronouns to the iconic characters. The iconic paladin was a woman, so references to paladins in the rules were to “her.” I thought we’d catch flak from someone about this usage, but I never heard fans complaining.

One topic we needed to settle was whether monsters that were gendered as female in folklore, such as a lamia, should be exclusively female in D&D. I figured we should ditch gender limits wherever we could, but an editor argued that gender was important for the identity of a monster like the lamia. I asked, “Is that because it is in woman’s nature to deceive and destroy men?” Luring and destroying men is a common trope for female-gendered monsters, with the lamia as an example. “Yes, it is” said the editor, but she was laughing, and I had made my point. You can see an illustration of a male lamia in the 3E Monster Manual.

While we incorporated Greyhawk’s deities into 3rd Ed, we had no intention of picking up Greyhawk’s description of various human ethnic groups, corresponding more or less to ethnicities found on Earth. For gamers who cared about the Greyhawk canon, the Asian sorcerer would be from a lightly described territory to the west and the black monk would be a “Touv” from the jungles of Hepmonaland. Touvs in 2E were defined as having a penalty to their Intelligence scores, and we sure didn’t want to send any players in that direction. In 3E, the Asian and black characters were just humans, full stop.

The good news is that the gaming audience rolled with the iconic characters featuring people of color and women. With 5th Ed, the design team picked up where we left off and have pursued diversity further. The diverse cast of characters goes a long way in making D&D look modern and mature.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jonathan Tweet

Jonathan Tweet

D&D 3E, Over the Edge, Everway, Ars Magica, Omega World, Grandmother Fish
I am likely in the minority on this one...

I miss more realistic armor and characters being sprinkled in the books.

It's fantasy so the proportion of women and people of color in a pseudo medieval European place is a non issue but I like to hearken back to guys with swords and torches...bucket helmets...less than full plate.

I could do with less feathers and bright colors for the heroes and heroines.
/snip

Funny thing is, the more time I spend in museums and whatnot, the more I realize, "feathers and bright colors" were probably a LOT more common than not. Some of that old armor is just freaking weirdly hilarious to modern eyes. Particularly helmet adornments.

It's kind of like those old Greek statues that you see now. Sure, now, they're all simple white statues. At the time, they were all painted and looked a lot sillier.

gods_jul08_5.jpg
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I loved the original Wild Wild West as a kid, but, it was just a mad wild-west (Victorian) science-fantasy spy-spoof (presaging Steampunk, really), steeped in the pop culture goofyness of the 60s (much like the contemporaneous Batman, or the Mrs Peel & Tara King seasons of the Avengers). It's hardly fair to impeach it for historical inaccuracy. Same goes for the Will Smith version. Though I was disappointed they cast someone so tall - I'd've preferred J.Lo.
Hey, I knock the James Bond franchise for having a secret agent whose name is world famous, in part because he never uses an alias.* So sue me!




* Even if “James Bond” is an alias itself, you still have the issue of that alias being inextricably tied to a known spy that...well, he’s basically using a bullhorn when he says, “Bond. James Bond.”
 


Hey, I knock the James Bond franchise for having a secret agent whose name is world famous, in part because he never uses an alias.* So sue me!
* Even if “James Bond” is an alias itself, you still have the issue of that alias being inextricably tied to a known spy that...well, he’s basically using a bullhorn when he says, “Bond. James Bond.”
You can imagine that, like psionic characters in the movies looking constipated and waving their hands around, it's a que for the audience, and that he'd really be using a different alias, each time. It's just, in this one story (like all the others), it's James Bond, of Universal Exports. For the audience's benefit, 'cause they're expecting it.
 

* Even if “James Bond” is an alias itself, you still have the issue of that alias being inextricably tied to a known spy that...well, he’s basically using a bullhorn when he says, “Bond. James Bond.”

How many people does he say that to that find out what he is... and survive? I mean, the sotry doesn't get out if they're all dead, right?
 


How many people does he say that to that find out what he is... and survive? I mean, the sotry doesn't get out if they're all dead, right?

In universe he has a reputation, people have heard of him. He's not really doing much infiltration.

Bonds always been sold as a fantasy IMHO. He's immortal lol.
 


When it comes to number of women in combat before the modern period, we simply don't know for certain. Unless you were famous or stood out somehow your gender was likely not noted in at least some cases.

There may have been female vikings for example, there are a few examples that make it a possibility. But even if we never had any direct evidence we only have physical remains for a tiny, tiny percentage of vikings.

In any case, the percentage of the population that are adventurers is also infinitesimally small in most campaigns so they're already the odd-balls.


Oh, well. Let's poke the hornets nest here...

There was not a lot of women in battles in medieval period unless it was a last stand situation and you are going to die either way so why not have a wack with an axe towards the enemy.

there are several reasons for it.

1st, upper body strength, women have 40-50% less upper body strength and about 30% less lower body strength.
now, while sword or spear is a great force multiplier, as you do not need a lot of power to cuts someones throat, you do need more power for faster attacks, and more power to penetrate gambeson or chain armour.
Good luck with plate unless you have warhammers that require even more strength than swords or spears to use with any effect.

now, there were above average strong women in history, and maybe they were soldiers, but they were very tiny minority.


2nd.
Due to human slow reproductive rate, women were much to valuable to be risked on a battlefield, unless above mentioned it was a last stand.

Women can have a child once per year if we are optimistic on medieval standards and if we calculate that 30-50%(depending on sources) chance of dying in childbirth, no society can afford to risk women in battles.

Men are simply more expendable in reproductive terms.
Man can impregnate a woman(lets be very optimistic also, but calculate for giving time for sperm count to go up in numbers and not every "shot" counts :p ), every 2 or 3 weeks. ballpark figures.

That still gives one man opportunity to impregnate 20 women in one year, if situation appears that more than 95% of men died in battle.

Yes, until next generation grows up there would be problem with manual labor, but women could manage that lack of strength.
But, what would end that society would be another attack from foreign power.

Now imagine opposite situation where 95% of women dies: how many generation would be needed to bring back the numbers?
 

Mod Note:

Ladies and gentlemen, if our discussion now has gone to how we should design our games based on laymen's appraisal of women's upper body strength and appropriateness for combat, and how really, we need to keep them for making babies.... we are very close to being done here.

Please go and consider the "Keep it inclusive" portion of the rules before you continue to post - because sliding into sexism, even under the guise of, "But it is TEH TRVTH!!1!" will not end well for you.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top